Re: [RFC/PATCH] Formatting variables in the documentation

[Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>]

Some people have suggested to standardize documentation's formatting to 
make it more consistent.

[1] 2015-04-29 20:13:53 GMT, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Interesting.  What I happen to use when populating the git-manpages
> repository would have wider impact to the users, as I hear that some
> (or many) distros just package whatever I have there.  I do not mind
> enabling it on my end if that gives us more readable rendition.

[2] On 2015-04-29 20:32:47, Jeff King wrote:
> I think it's probably fine and a positive change, but one never knows. I
> guess distros don't package what you ship until you actually tag a
> release, so it would be OK to start doing so during a cycle to shake out
> any problems (and in fact preferable, as anybody who follows "master"
> using "make install-man-quick" would get it early and be able to make a
> report).
>
> If we are doing that, it would make sense to flip MAN_BOLD_LITERAL on by
> default during that same cycle, so we could get reports from people who
> build the manpages from source.

[3] On 2015-11-13 05:45:05, Jeff King wrote:
> If we want to move to backticks, we probably want to also turn on
> MAN_BOLD_LITERAL by default, or it's a step backwards for some folks.

The question is about flipping MAN_BOLD_LITERAL by default or not.

Since 2.8.3 was out recently, we could flip MAN_BOLD_LITERAL on by 
default for this cycle to shake out problems as Jeff King suggested [2].


Another option could be testing if the system does support bold literal 
and flipping it on or off accordingly, but I don't know exactly where 
that could be done.